mls@dasys1.UUCP (Michael Siemon) (09/20/89)
I found it a bit odd when the moderator called the Roman church schismatic in talk.religion.misc. For somewhat the same reason I find it odd (though less odd) for Rome to call the Orthodox schismatic. In that case, at least, the final 11th century split was the expression of a fissure that had been growing since the third century. But I have a sense that "schism" normally implies that a party within an organization decides that it can NO LONGER abide by the organizational rules it *has* been observing and so decamps to form a counter (or at least different) organization. It is at any rate clear that the Protestants LEFT the Roman organization, whatever the the merits of their decision and whatever the truth that they were simply returning to an earlier model of polity. And despite there being several distinct breaks with Rome, and mutual suspicion, there has truly been some political unity of Protestantism -- simply in self-defense against monolithic Rome, e.g.in the secular arm of Charles V and Philip II. But "schism most simply means "split" and we are indeed split -- and we are all responsible for this. There is a reason, I think, for the sad fact that the Body of Christ has been torn by dissension since very near its birth. It is a paradoxical result of the common witness of all of us who name ourselves Christian -- we are WHO we are because we have been saved by the Truth which is Christ, through the Spirit of Truth: "And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you." -- John 14:16-17 The skeptical Pilate ("what is truth?") exemplifies those who know nothing. If we know our own salvation, we know that Truth because it lives in us. Knowing this Truth, and being human, we tie the truth to words and to our understanding of the words. And here we start to go astray, because we confuse our salvation with the word-pictures in which we discuss it with others, or through which we frame our prayers. All of that is necessary to us, being human; but it carries with it a danger -- if someone else is framing their prayers or discussions *differently* it can look to us like they are denying OUR salvation, denying OUR truth, because they *say* it differently. But what I know because of its life in me is like my knowledge of my heart and its beating -- a "knowledge" that is quite unconcerned with the biology involved. A knowledge that may or may not be aided by the latest theories of cardiac function. The word "heresy" in pre-Christian Greek refered to the differing schools of philosophic thought, and its introduction into our religious affairs points to the root of the problem: we have erected some "understanding" of salvation into an icon and subsequently nothing will be admitted into consideration that does not match the icon. I don't know any way to dispense with the icons and still obey the command to love God with our whole mind -- the basic functioning of our mind is by metaphor, by imaging. But we *have* to stop confusing matters of style (iconographic details in our pictures) with the reality we are picturing. And since salvation is so dear to us (a pearl that we will sell all we have to purchase!) we clutch desperately at it, and reject every statement that doesn't compel our own assent, as if it came from the devil. I see a lot of that on the net -- passionate insistence that all Christians MUST see things the same way, with an implied threat that unless everyone agrees with the writer, somehow the truth the writer holds fast to may be a lie. (Yes, this is a deliberate inversion of the standard charge, i.e. that the writer's opponents are the ones holding a lie. I'm saying the passion is at least in part related to the writer's fear for his own truth.) But if our truth is not a self-serving truth, if it is a truth that issues in the fruits of life, then it meets the criteria we are given by our Lord. In which case it is mostly irrelevant whether someone else agrees with us or not. Luckily, we are NOT judged by what others, self-named as Christian or as anything else, agree with us about. [There is a technical quibble here, in that the power to bind and loose in such matters is very much a part of Catholic self-definition; I ask my Catholic readers to stand above that perspective -- artificial and difficult as it may seem -- and look at the matter as it was "before" the establishment of a Church. -- mls] When dealing with the "heretics", a great deal can be achieved simply by laying aside anxiety about our own salvation, since the disagreements and discussions in no way alter that. Neither can you force someone else's salvation by forcing your own doctrines down their throats. This is somewhat long lead-in to comments on Mac Horton's article, and to the issue of mutual communion of the various churches. The issue troubled me in talk.religion.misc, and it continues to, without my being able to say exactly why. I think the problem is that I *know* too little, I have too much difficulty distinguishing what matters to God from what matters to me: 1. Fringe Protestants still, as did many Protestants centuries ago, think "papist mummery" is a tool of the devil whose "function" is a deceitful seduction away from Christ (and hence, if that is not "admitted" there must be a conspiracy; I'd put in a smiley except that too many are deadly serious about this.) Mac Horton may not have noticed intra-Protestant sniping, but I have; though it's true that it doesn't normally reach the Antichrist level of vituperation. 2. Some "low church" types regard high church liturgies as "dead" and "stereotyped" but not (except stylistically) wrong so much as high-falutin' -- they may be able to participate in "higher" ceremonies, but they do so by "taking" them as merely peculiar variants of their own. That is, it is quite easy to read most Lutheran or Anglican or Roman communions as "memorial" services in the more Reformed manner (again, that requires putting aside as least temporarily, a Reformed sense that ceremonies _per se_ are a sort of idolatry.) 3. High church Anglicans, at least those with a major Protestant back- ground (like me), may be able to participate in communion with the Reformed, or Baptist, or even further out cults (insert as many :-) as you want there) on THEIR terms, but not thereby considering it a communion on OUR terms. But this is complex; I'm enough Protestant that I can regard ANY exchange of bread and wine in the name of Christ as SOME kind of memorial -- it's just that that doesn't quite count as "the" memorial our Lord commanded us to make (paraphrasing Cranmer). Or at least, I find myself with a "boundary" problem; some memorials "count" as a sacrament of communion, and some do not: they are perhaps "second order" sacraments -- a liturgy that represents a liturgy that represents a spritual reality. My church has to be more precise about this boundary than I do; no one may legitimately preside at Episcopal Masses (or distribute the host) who is not licensed to do so, which is to say, a priest ordained in our church. Presbyterians, Lutheran or Romans (or whomever) must be "re"ordained if they join us. For me, as for most lay Episcopalians, there is no need to draw any such sharp boundary. And our boundaries need not in themselves say anything about the "validity" of sacraments elsewhere (e.g. in Roman or Orthodox churches). In the same sense as 2. above, I can, personally, "read" a Roman or Orthodox communion as valid on *my* terms. But again, the matter is not symmetrical. It's hard to know what Rome could do without thoroughly denying its past. It is very hard for me to see what the Catholic priest could have done at the ecumenical service Charley mentioned: unless he were saying a different mass at the same time, or had brought with him reserved sacrament (which might be illegitimate here, I'm not presuming one way or the other) he can hardly be observing a Catholic sacrament of communion, and any other participation amounts to a legitimation of Protestant sacrametary theology. Protestants at least share the CONTROVERSY about what communion means, and so can see each other as "parties" within a broader tradition -- whereas a Catholic who shares Joe Buehler's "ratchet" theory of truth (once the Church has Pronounced, further discussion is Wrong) is trapped by that theory -- there CANNOT be a legitimate sacrament in the "memorial" style. [Or can there? I think truly creative Catholic theology could get around this. --mls] And I would think it likely to be offensive to Protestants if the priest DID say a separate Mass, quite aside from practical problems of who is an acceptable communicant to Rome. Again, as Charley mentioned, the Episcopal position is that any baptized Christian may receive, and that is self- monitored in practice, but this is a "latitudinarian" position of a church that deliberately attempts to encompass a range of doctrine. Anglicans have enough feet (at least the three feet of Charley's favorite stool :-)) in both camps to tolerate these ambiguities -- indeed we may seem to other Christians to INSIST on ambiguities. For us, it is a matter of how much tension we can individually bear. But Rome is a prisoner of its own past words of anathema. That is the connection with my opening remarks. Those who take Rome to be the Antichrist, and equally Rome itself, fear for their own salvation or else are convinced there is no salvation except on terms largely of their own manufacture (which is not meant as a denial of a ground of truth in both instances). But as a result, they have trouble with the statement in Mark 9:38-40: "John said to him, 'Teacher, we saw a man casting out devils in your name, and we forbade him, because he was not following us.' But Jesus said, 'Do not forbid him; for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon after to speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is for us." And I am tempted to add a somewhat artificial reading of verse 42: "'Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hund round his nck and he were thrown into the sea.'" such that the manufacture of doctrine and explicit or implicit anathemas on that basis counts as "causing <believers> to sin" in effect by creating sins that are no sin in the eyes of God. But of course, my saying that is a statement of the way *I* read the truth living in me, and as subject to my own peculiar misinterpretations as any I object to. -- Michael L. Siemon O stand, stand at the window ...!cucard!dasys1!mls As the tears scald and start; You shall love your crooked neighbor With your crooked heart.
hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (09/20/89)
In response to mls@dasys1.UUCP (Michael Siemon): I think intercommunion between Episcopal and Reformed should be possible. I do understand that problem with Catholics. But aside from them, I think the key is to understand that the sacrament is not a creation of our organization. Christ instituted it. And he gave us no theory of his mode of presence. So in my view the requirements for a valid communion are: (1) that they follow certain formal requirement that follow directly from Christ's command, specifically that they use bread and wine (*), and probably also use some version of the words of Institution; (2) that the liturgy and liturgical theology should make it clear that they intend to be doing the action that Christ commanded. This is exactly parallel to the requirements for a valid baptism: (1) baptism in water using the formula "I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit", (2) that they intend to be carrying out Christian baptism. I understand that you have a somewhat different view of how Christ is present in Communion than the Baptists do. But as long as a Baptist Communion service meets the requirements for carrying out Christ's commands, it seems that Christ would be present in it in the same way as in yours. In your discussion you clearly have a problem accepting "low church" communions as equivalent to yours. I can see two possible reasons: problems with the status of the ordination of their pastors, and differences in liturgy and liturgical theology. I have just argued that the second should not be an issue. However the status of ordination is harder to deal with. It's always hard for me to know to what extent Episcopaleans are really Protestants, and to what extent they share Catholic positions. (This confusion often seems to extend to the Episcopaleans themselves.) Clearly if you believe that Communion must be carried out by someone who has been ordained by a bishop who is in the apostolic succession, then you cannot accept a "low church" Communion as fully valid. But other than that, I see no reason for problems. So far I've mentioned Baptists, since clearly their idea of Communion is different than yours in significant ways. However you seem to suggest that it is the same for Reformed. I think not. I note that the description of Communion in both your Catechism and Articles of Religion are consistent with the Reformed concept. Your comments seem to imply that the Reformed concept is that of a simple memorial. In fact Calvin, and after him such Reformed confessions as the Heidelberg Catechism, the Second Helvetic Confession, the Westminster Confession, and the Scots Confession teach what I believe is best characterized as "spiritual presence". This is the idea that Christians really do receive Christ's body and blood in communion, but that our contact with his body and blood is through mediation of the Holy Spirit, not through physical contact with the elements. "There is more than one kind of eating. There is corporeal eating whereby food is taken into the mouth, is chewed with the teeth, and swallowed into the stomach. ... There is also a spiritual eating of Christ's body; not such that we think that thereby the food itself is to be changed into spirit, but whereby the body and blood of the Lord, while remaining in their own essence and property, are spiritually communicated to us, certainly not in a corporeal but in a spiritual way, by the Holy Spirit, who applies and bestows upon us these things which have been prepared for us by the sacrifice of the Lord's body and blood for us, ... and he causes us to receive him by true faith to this end that he may become for us such spiritual food and drinek, that is, our life.... For even as bodily food and drink not only refresh and strengthen our bodies, but also keep them alive, so the flesh of Christ delivered for us, and his blood shed for us, not only refresh and strengthen out souls, but also preserve them alive, not in so far as they are corporeallly eaten and drunken, but in so far as they are communicated unto us spiritually by the Spirit of God..." (Second Helvetic Confession) We do not believe that the bread and wine of themselves create grace. However under those signs, Christ is really offering himself to us in the sacrament. And of course his presence does bring God's grace. "We grant that this is neither given to us merely at the time nor by the power and virtue of the sacrament alone, but we affirm that the faithful, in the right use of the Lord's Table, have such union with Christ Jesus as the natural man cannot apprehend. Further we affirm that although the faithful, hindered by negligence and human weakness, do not profit as much as they ought in the actual moment of the Supper, yet afterwards it shall bring forth fruit, being living seed sown in good ground; for the Holy Spirit, who can never be separated from the right institution of the Lord Jesus, will not deprive the faithful of the fruit of that faithful action. ... Therefore, if anyone slanders us by saying that we affirm or believe the sacraments to be symbols and nothing more they are libelous and speak against the plain facts." (The Scots Confession (1560)) I have no easy way to resolve problems resulting from the Apostolic Succession. I'm sure you know my view: Choice of church polity is not prescribed in the Bible, so it is left to the good sense of the church. There is no command from Christ saying that Communion may only be celebrated by those in the apostolic succession. However obviously Catholics have a different view. I am willing to acknowledge that healing the divisions of the Church is an obligation incumbent on all parties. However it's unrealistic to imply that the situation is completely symmetrical. Protestants have no problems in theory with accepting the Catholic Church as fully equal to our own. We may have problems in practice, and I would be the last to suggest that we are without fault. But Catholics have a problem in dealing with the division that we do not have. They have a concept of church authority that makes it hard for them to treat Protestant churches as equal in -- what should we say -- authorization? -- to the Catholic Church. The basic problem is that we have different ideas of what it would mean to heal the division. My model is that it would mean that all churches acknowledge each other as equally part of Christ's body, and they are all in communion with each other. Protestants cannot identify Christ's body with a specific human organization. I have the feeling that the Catholic model ultimately cannot envision there being several independent churches. and so their model is that a complete healing would mean that we all merge back into one. Perhaps I'm misreading things, but this seems to be the gist of what most of the postings say. How can you heal a break when each side's idea of what it would mean to heal it involves the other side abandoning their basic identity? I'm not sure this is a situation where compromise is possible. It seems to me that the Protestant position has a certain tactical advantage. In some sense the status quo is with us. There are many churches. The pressure on Catholics to see other churches as part of Christ's body is very clear. Yet the further they go in seeing Protestant churches as authorized agents of Christ, the closer they are to accepting the Protestant model. On our side, Protestants can fit Catholics into our framework with no problem. Of course tactical advantage does not necessarily mean truth... ----- (*) I use the term wine broadly, to include unfermented grape juice. There are enough people who have problems with use of alcohol that it makes sense to be slightly, er, flexible in our definition of wine so as to avoid putting a stumbling block in the way of these brothers and sisters.
mangoe@mimsy.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) (09/23/89)
I think that OFM gets off to a good start in his reply, but that things eventually go ary. The comment about institution, I agree, is at the root of this. I think one problem we have with the RC church over this is that their position on authority has the effect of appearing to negate this; if the eucharist is what it is, then what The Church says it is would seem to be of limited relevance. Turning it into a point of church discipline more or less guarantees protestantism. ANyway, that grumping out the way, I would note in passing that the episcopal liturgies tend to treat breaking of the bread as an essential part of the act. The whole meaning of ordination is somewhat controversial in the episcopal church. On one fringe we have dogmatic belief in apostolic succession (the so-called pipeline theory of grace). In the other direction we have Urban Holmes saying that the orders are not of dominical ordinance and are simply preferable above all other systems. Holmes certainly has a point, because the gospels simply do not say what the proper minister for the eucharist is-- and as protestants, anglicans surely must bow to scripture to at least this degree. This "spiritual presence" model is unclear to me to the extent that the model seems to be saying, by implication, that the role of the elements is symbolic. This is a consequence of the negative comment about "physical contact with the elements"; clearly there is *some* symbolic value invoolved, and the comment seems to forbid any other effective role. Anglicans are a bit messy about this, but "real presence" says that the "physical contact" does mean something more than just physical eating or a symbol of some other divine activity. The confession cited may flatly deny a "merely" symbolic role, but with the denial of real presence, I don't see what other role is possible. It is interesting to me that the confession seems to imply that a view of the elements as purely symbolic represents a trap. Symbolism as a theory is actually rather commonly held. It also seems to commonly lead to various sorts of aberrations; the elements tend to metamorphosize into almost any potable and any bakery item (for some reason, the cases I have heard of all involved Coca-Cola and cookies), and the whole thing often turns into a sort genericized god-celebration. (BTW, ancient practice already has a solution to the alcohol problem: communion need only be taken in one kind.) If we are going to have communion among the theories, we at least have some obligation to be pretty pure about the elements. For us hyper-sacramental types, following the instructions is of some pretty high importance; I have trouble seeing what the problem might be in humoring us on this point. This may seem to be a triviality, but a lot of current communion practice can be traced to this sort of gripe. Personally, I find wafers to be a pretty poor symbol-- not bread at all, and not broken either. If we are going to have intercommunion with the RC church, however, we would appear to need unleavened bread, and the fragmentation bomb effect of matzoh (or most bread, for that matter) is one of the reasons we have wafers in the first place. On the other hand, are not cookies a bit too casual? Here we have two contradictory trends: by the "symbolists", to take "mere" symbolism as licence, and by their opposite numbers, to treat the elements downright superstitiously. The point of all this is that the differences in the theories have effects beyond simple validity; they affect one's whole attitude towards the sacrament. C. Wingate + "Our God, to whom we turn when weary with illusion, + whose stars serenely burn above this earth's confusion, mangoe@mimsy.umd.edu + thine is the mightly plan, the steadfast order sure mimsy!mangoe + in which the world began, endures, and shall endure." [The Reformed confessions do not deny the real presence. They say that Christ's body is really present for us in communion. They simply claim that it is not localized in the elements. The significance of the elements is to provide a visible representation of something that is happening invisibly. Of course the symbols have to be appropriate. How can they make the reality of the sacrament visible if they are not appropriate symbols? --clh]